Would Australians agree that human lives are more important than Australian cattle?

The Gillard government’s decision to temporarily ban all live cattle exports to Indonesia — in response to public backlash after an expose by Four Corners — was welcomed by animal lovers in Australia.

Migrants, refugees and illegal immigrants detained in Malaysia are now hoping that the ABC’s Four Corners programme will also investigate their predicament.

The evidence of brutality against migrants, refugees and illegal immigrants in Malaysia are overwhelming. Below are just three sources for the record:

1. Amnesty International’s brief on the Australia refugee deal with Malaysia highlighted how Malaysia pays lip service to human rights and that refugees are most vulnerable to abuse:

Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention or Protocol; Malaysia has a record of human rights abuse; Malaysian law does not distinguish between illegal migrant workers and asylum seekers/refugees; Those transferred will be at risk of detention or arrest; Regular immigration raids and arrests; Refugees and asylum-seekers in Malaysia are vulnerable to abuse; Those transferred may face ill-treatment in Malaysian detention centers or jails; Malaysian authorities practice caning;

There were a number of credible reports of Malaysian immigration authorities’ involvement in the trafficking of Burmese refugees from immigration detention centers to the Thai-Malaysian border. Several credible sources reported that immigration officials sold refugees for approximately $200 per person to traffickers operating along Thailand’s southern border. In turn, the traffickers demanded ransom – ranging from $300 for children to $575 for adults – in exchange for their freedom. Informed sources estimated 20 percent of the victims were unable to pay the ransom, and were sold for the purpose of labor and commercial sexual exploitation.

3. It has been reported in the Malaysian Parliament that 1,535 people — including migrants, refugees and illegal immigrants — died in Malaysian government detention centers from 2003 to 2007. The Malaysian government has not provided any details on the number of deaths in custody since.

If the Gillard government can take such a drastic measure of temporarily banning live cattle exports to Indonesia based on one documentary, then surely this government can call-off the “Malaysia solution” on the overwhelming evidence of human rights abuse by Malaysians and the Malaysian authorities.

Surely, Australians would agree that human lives are more important than Australian cattle. Could I be wrong?

Share this:

22 Comments

While it has been reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard is an atheist, this report suggesting cows rate more highly than children in Australian government circles makes one wonder if she might perhaps be an undercover Hindu.
If so it may help to explain her continued military campaign against people in the predominantly Islamic Afghanistan?

Would Australians agree that human lives are more important than Australian cattle?

Yes I do, that’s why I support the Australian government taking stern measures to deter people from undertaking dangerous sea voyages (that have killed hundreds of people in recent years), in order that they get to press their claims in front of people who may be far more deserving of asylum in Australia.

Migrants, refugees and illegal immigrants detained in Malaysia are now hoping that the ABC’s Four Corners programme will also investigate their predicament

If the scheme is implemented, one of 2 things will happen:
either
1)- people will continue making the journey by boat. For each such person, 1 will be sent to Malaysia, and 5 will be accepted by Australia. A net removal of four people from Malaysia. Given that you believe Malaysia is a shit-hole, you must be in agreement, no?

2) – no-one will risk making the boat journey. So Australia will not send ANYONE to Malaysia, removing, I presume, the source of your complaint. It will also have the benefit that people will stop drowning and/or getting their brains bashed out on rocky shores.

Let’s face it, the real reason people like you whinge about the proposed scheme is that it might just work, and Australia, shock horror, can implement an objective, humane refugee policy, not one based on money paid to people smugglers and by people rorting the system.

BTW: I also think it’s appalling that Australia imposes draconian prison sentences on poor Indonesian fisherman who have been duped into working on those boats, while the real ringmasters make sure they leave them before they get anywhere near Australian waters.

your posts on Malaysian politics keep us well-informed on the latest developments, and I sympathise with your sentiment regarding the “Malaysia solution”, however it does you no credit to fall back on the time old argument against animal rights: that respecting them is akin to treating animals as more important than humans.
Surely we can avoid torturing animals unnecessarily in Indonesia AND protect human rights in Malaysia. I don’t see how the two are mutually exclusive!

Hi Huw, you suggest that both can be met – and I’m with you on that. But what perplexes me, and hence the key reason for this posting: Why is the Malaysia solution still on, in comparison to the speed in which the government made the decision to ban live cattle exports?

Hence, my request to Australians are:

(1) If you do value human life more than animal rights – please take action to stop the Malaysia solution;

(2) If you value human life as much as you do animal rights – please take action to stop the Malaysia solution in the similar manner you stopped the Australian government from exporting live cattle;

@ Stuart # 5

Agreed that my proposition is species centric. However being species centric does not lead to abuse of the environment and its constituents. That’s an outcome of greed.

I actually had the discussion with a fellow economist who had the same views as you. Here is what I told him and this is based entirely on economic arguments (not human rights):

(1) As long as there are unstable countries (Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, etc) there will always be incentives for its citizens to leave that country. As noted human life is priceless – and these people will pay whatever it takes and take disproportionate risks rather than facing certainty of death in their home countries.

Hence, boat people will always be there unless you resolve the problem at its source.

The idea that they will be in detention – whether in Malaysia or Australia – is not a deterrent.

So, your point that no one will make the journey to Australia is wrong.

(2) The trade off – for every 1 sent to Malaysia, 5 will be accepted in Australia.

What is the price that Australia is paying. Is this good economics?

Would it not be more cost-effective to have a system where all boat people are processed in Australia – and while waiting – are allowed into the community?

Also, what are the numbers that make it to Australia? Is it really such a big problem.

I think the problem with refugees is a perception problem i.e. the perception of some Australians about them. Its not really an economic issue. Its something else. Unless the government manages the perception of some Australians about refugees, it will not be resolved.

@ Greg Lopez Hence, boat people will always be there unless you resolve the problem at its source.

…
So, your point that no one will make the journey to Australia is wrong.

If the scheme is implemented, anyone who makes the boat journey to Australian territory will be sent to Malaysia. All those comtemplating such a journey will quickly learn that is useless for their cause to make such a journey, and the practice will quickly stop. Who would pay a people smuggler big money to take them on such a dangerous journey, when they know that it is useless to do so? Refugee agencies can then run a fair and humane practice of selecting those refugees in camps overseas who are most deserving of a place in Australia’s refugee intake. Rather than the alternative of having those with the best connections, best selection of people smuggler and most money, being settled here.

Also, what are the numbers that make it to Australia? Is it really such a big problem.

That is not the point for 2 reasons: firstly if Australia does implement such a system as you are suggesting, the numbers arriving by boat will skyrocket. Secondly, and more importantly, it is inhumane to run a system that relies on people paying smugglers large sums of money, to take them on overcrowded, leaky boats across dangerous oceans. It is a system that does not suit the most desperate, it is a system that favours the wealthy and those with the best contacts. It is far better to have a system where Australia can decide a fair number of people to accept (and I personally have no problem with the current allocated number being greatly expanded) and then allow refugee agencies to select the most deserving people to fill that quota.

(By the way, you do realise that ‘boat people’ is a bit of a misnomer anyway? Most unauthorised boat arrivals have done the majority of their journey by air. They fly from their home countries to Malaysia and Indonesia. It is only the last bit of their jouney that is by boat – after they have destroyed all their documents.)

I think the problem with refugees is a perception problem i.e. the perception of some Australians about them.

Why don’t you just spell it right out the way so many critics do (such as the one I just heard on the radio): “Australians are racists!”.

I do wish people would realise that supporting the the refugee boat trade does NOT automatically make you a fair and humane person (and therefore entitled to hurl abusive names at their opponents). It is not a fair and humane practice.

(1) The crux of my posting is to ask why the double standards in decision making – one standard for what some Australians deem important (animal rights) against an issue which has broad-based support albeit for different reasons i.e. sending refugees to Malaysia is not a good idea (U.N., Amnesty International, most of ALP, Coalition, civil society groups in Malaysia & Australia, etc).

(2) Perception problem is not the same as being racist.

My friend, a middle aged wealthy Australian economist, believes that it is good economics to have the boat people processed in Malaysia (citing the reasons you gave in the earlier post). He believes that having them in Australia would send the wrong signal and could open the flood gates (as you have raised). He is not a racist. He just perceives this to be a problem.

This is my response to him and to you. Having refugees processed in Australia is not going to open the flood gates to refugees. If you interact with refugees and understand supply and demand – you will know that there are supply side constraints/barriers that stop people from “flooding” Australia. There are natural barriers (Australia’s geographical location) and other barriers (raising the sufficient amount of funds, making contact with the traffickers, the risk of being raped, murdered, sold off as forced labour, prostitution, etc) that stop this.

Australia could be “flooded” technically if it was contiguous with Asia. E.g. South Africa was “flooded” when Zimbabwe went bust – nearly 1 million people. There are lots more example e.g. Syria & Turkey right now. Read this report to get a scale of the issue. This also suggests that the problem Australia faces is minuscule and well within the capability of the government to cope with.

So your concern, just like my friend is misplaced. My friend is not a racist and I don’t think you are too. I just think that you and most Australians probably do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Much of this has to do with the partisan nature of Australian politics that does not allow sensible policy making on hot button issues like this. (Re how the refugee issue was used by Coalition & ALP in the run-up to the 2010 general election).

I had suggested to my friend that Australia take a three pronged approach: First – to make the refugee problem a cross-bench issue to avoid scare tactics – e.g. Australia will be flooded; second, accept the boat people that arrives on Australian shore (with necessary processing for national security reasons). This would raise Australia’s standing in the international community & also make good economic sense.

Since resolving the problem at source (stabilising Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka etc) are long term challenges, the third strategy is to coordinate with ASEAN, and other nations linked to trafficking (either as source or transition point)- to stop trafficking. This is of course medium term and difficult effort but surely more humane and intelligent, I would argue.

My point Greg, is that you are artificially linking two unrelated issues.
Animal rights in Indonesia is not related to human rights in Malaysia. The people that care about these issues are not prioritising one above the other, in any way, shape or form.
The “Malaysia Solution” is problematic in itself, for its own reasons. Malaysia hasn’t signed the Refugee Convention for one. Their human rights record for another, as you have pointed out.
The problem with your argument is that many of the people that are agitating against torture of animals in Indonesian abattoirs are the very same people agitating against the Malaysian solution, ie. they are people that care!

Hi Huw, I’m trying hard to avoid crowding out the discussion, so a quick question.

If it is the same people fighting the cause to stop live cattle exports and the Malaysia solution (I argue that a larger constituent is against the Malaysia solution than banning live cattle exports), why did the Gillard administration respond so differently?

That’s really the crux of my question (& post).

I’d really appreciate if Australians can actually shed light on why they think the Gillard administration has made two opposing decisions on the same set of core values i.e. Rights – Rights of Australian cattle against Rights of refugees arriving in Australia.

@ Greg Lopez #10(1) The crux of my posting is to ask why the double standards in decision making – one standard for what some Australians deem important (animal rights) against …[human rights of refugees]

I think your stance is wrong for 2 reasons. As pointed out by another poster it makes no sense to link 2 completely different issues – one regarding extreme cruelty to animals and the other regarding the best way to deal with refugees. The 2nd reason is that you see the proposed scheme as being an attack on the human rights of refugees. But the current system (of sorting out who gets accepted as a refugee into Australia) on the basis of who drums up the funds to pay people smugglers and undertakes a hazardous ocean voyage, is in itself terrible for the human rights of all would-be refugees wanting to come to Australia. It is a system which says “you want us to accept you? Good! Then come up with a large sum of money, deal with (usually vicious) criminals, and put your and your family’s life at risk before to prove that you’re worthy!” There is indeed a large pool of worthy people. Deciding who to accept from that pool should be done rationally and on the basis of need, not on survival of a sea journey. That is why I say getting rid of the boat trade will, overall, be beneficial to the rights of refugees. The proposed scheme has a very good chance of doing this.

My friend, a middle aged wealthy Australian economist, believes that it is good economics to have the boat people processed in Malaysia

I prefer not to discuss this problem simply in terms of economics. My standpoint is based on human rights.

My friend is not a racist and I don’t think you are too.

Likewise, despite your apparent acceptance of the current system, which I believe is terrible for refugees, and your reluctance to accept a system which might help them overall, I don’t think you are a racist.

I think the issue of animal vs human rights in this context is a bit of a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow from simultaneously supporting a ban of live cattle trade *and* the rejection of refugees that you prioritise animal over human rights. Similarly, it doesn’t follow from prioritising human over animal rights that you can’t be outraged at the treatment of animals and yet support (lets call it) the Howard doctrine on refugees.

You asked through email,
“What I really want to know is why the government is holding on to the Malaysia solution in the face of intense opposition (from ALP, Greens, A.I., U.N special rapportuer, etc) but caved in so easily to the demands from animal rights supporters.”

This is really a matter of politics. It was easy to put in place an instant ban on the live animal trade and then find a more nuanced response later because there’s no real electoral pressure against doing that. I don’t think it was a matter of caving to pressure, there was never any hold out against a ban that was eventually beaten down, it was a matter of being appalled at a revelation (to them at least, no revelation to me) and reacting to it.

As for the deal with Malaysia, Labor is essentially clumsy at politics. The Labor apparatchiks and all their focus groups tell its leaders that implementing humane refugee policies is bad politics. The reason its perceived as bad politics is basically because the Liberals have managed to frame it as tough vs weak responses to ‘que jumpers’ and ‘illegal immigrants’, and effective vs ineffective at ‘stopping the boats’. Labor has positioned itself politically against the Howard doctrine, but hasn’t managed to come up with an effective method of disarming the political alarmism over ‘boat-people arrivals’. They announced a deal with Malaysia because they felt pressure to announce *something* that wasn’t Nauru when Tony Abbot started hyperventilating over the number of new arrivals. But if UNHCR don’t support it, it wont get through parliament since half the Labor party (Gillard’s faction) declared they wont support it otherwise. So I think they will drop the Malaysian deal in the end, but they need a replacement policy before they do that so they don’t look like a government without a policy at all.

The problem is they don’t have too many options for ‘outsourcing’ the solution. 142 countries out of 192 countries worldwide have ratified both the 1951 Convention, and the 1967 Protocol relating to refugees, but amongst ASEAN countries, only Cambodia and the Philippines have.
[http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf]
So of the 50 countries that haven’t ratified both, 8 are ASEAN countries. Eventually, I think they are going to have to make this a matter for some intense regional diplomacy. In the meantime, they will have to either come up with a solution that doesn’t rely on sending unauthorised arrivals to a third country, or suffer some serious political defeats at the next election. Sadly, my money is on the latter.

I don’t have much hope for the current Liberal Party, but if Labor decided to follow conviction instead of focus groups, I’d be much less depressed about the state of this country (and they’d probably turn around their pathetic poll numbers). They could start by rejecting, loudly and often, the notion that Australia faces an existential threat from refugees arriving by boat. They could follow up by getting things done instead of vacillating over climate change.

I also want to respond quickly to whether the Malaysian deal is actually ‘good’ or not. It seems to me you’re disagreement with one of the commentators (Naiharn) boils down to different philosophical approaches. Naiharn is approaching the issue from a consequentialist perspective: what outcome is achieved. You, and most people who oppose the deal with Malaysia are approaching it from a deontological perspective, which judges the morality of the action itself, rather than focusing on the results it leads to. A deontological perspective doesn’t need to completely ignore outcomes of course, and I don’t think you are (its common to consider means and ends as indistinguishable), but the essential debate is one of ‘do the ends justify the means’.

To answer that, you have to ask if better means can achieve similar, equivalent, or better ends. If more palatable means result in terrible outcomes, which has become a core argument of the Howard doctrine, then we should stop our bleeding hearts and accept that a distasteful policy produces the best results. But if we can achieve good results through moral actions, then that approach should certainly be preferred. Maybe even if the results do not initially appear quite as good, because the second order results, due to precedent and exemplar behaviour can eventually outweigh the initial results.

To do this we have to actually identify and justify the desired ‘ends’. In this case, I think there are a number of objectives:
1. Provide security, liberty and opportunity to refugees
2. Ensure the process is fair
3. Ensure the process is compassionate and humane
4. Avoid deaths through voyage to Australia
5. Alleviate perceptions of existential threat and invasion by foreigners

The last one is essentially a matter of politics. @Naiharn, I’m happy to spell it out: there are Australians who talk virulently about refugees. Much of what they say is overtly racist. If you want proof, have a look at this
Even when not explicitly racist, there is a strong tendency to ‘blame the victim’ and direct undue hate and scorn toward some of the world’s most vulnerable people. While its also discriminatory to tarnish all people of a particular policy persuasion as holding the views expressed in the link above, pointing out this part of Australian society is fair game. Such people should be shamed.

Part of the problem we have, is that Howard, and now Abbott don’t care about the last objective. Their priorities look like this:
1. Get elected
They have both proven themselves willing to exploit fear and bigotry to achieve that objective.

Anyway, my main point is that in a lot of debate on this issue people are talking past each other, because they don’t identify their objectives. They debate the merits of different policies without first agreeing on what the policies should achieve.

Another part of the problem is that typically, the left direct a lot of empathy toward the visible problem (humane and compassionate treatment of people at our border) and don’t try to deal with how it fits into the larger problem. As of the end of 2009, the UNHCR identified 36 million people “of concern”. Of that, 8.6 million were refugees, 1.5 were “like refugees” almost 1 million had pending applications for asylum, 15 million were internally displaced, 6.5 million were stateless people. Australia provided asylum for nearly 25,000 people of concern, 22,548 of whom were refugees and 2,350 of whom had applications pending (I assume many of those 2,350 were in detention).Data: excel file from UNHCR

I don’t know how to ensure the process is fair when a refugee granted asylum in Australia through the UNHCR process is probably better off than one granted asylum in, say, Syria or Iran (both of which have 50 times the number of refugees as are here, if I’m reading the data correctly). By what process do you determine who goes to which country? I do know that you can’t ensure a humane or compassionate process if you have a policy of mandatory detention, or of sending asylum seekers to a third country that has an inhumane or un-compassionate refugee policy.

As for the fourth objective, which is supposedly the justification for “stopping the boats”, I mentioned that 142 countries have ratified both the relevant protocol and convention. Surely we could easily have a swap arrangement with any of those countries if it turns out that this encourages asylum seekers to look for a safer method of seeking refuge.

There’s some room for debate over the relative merit of each objective, but that isn’t the debate we’ve been having.

A reminder of the human cost of The Malaysia Solution. The Malaysia Solution is supposed to break the business model of the “human traffickers or people smugglers”. At what cost should this be? Dr. Gerhard Hoffstaedter provides a reminder of this on The National Interest.

“…The government has promoted the deal as a first step towards regional cooperation on managing displaced people. But critics point out that Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and asylum seekers often suffer harsh treatment from Malaysian authorities. Those who have worked with asylum-seekers in Malaysia believe the new regime may well discourage people from attempting to make the dangerous trip to Australia by sea, given that it could see them returned to Malaysia anyway. But the extent to which their human rights would be safeguarded while in Malaysia is still unclear…”

Clive Kessler has an excellent article arguing why the Malaysia Solution is the best solution.

Having spent a scholarly life, over half a century, studying Malaysian society, culture and politics, I know those shortcomings far better than most. Even so, there is a good case to be made for the ”Malaysian solution”.

It provides the most workable, humane, long-term sustainable approach now on offer. It is a policy that stands somewhere between saying no to everybody and yes to everybody who shows up here.

Hi Greg, just briefly, I think the “Malaysian Solution” has more to do with policy compromise than Malaysia and Australia’s commitments towards human rights. The question as to why the big theme has to be one of “compromise” could turn up some very interesting observations about Australian identity today.

The arguments put forward by Clive Kessler and Gerhard Hoffstaedter provides the reasons that the Malaysia solution, in an imperfect world, is the best way to cast attention to and resolve, at least in the short term, the problems faced by those suffering the most – the refugees.

And reading their arguments, I would agree with them that the Malaysia Solution is probably the best way forward.